Truth of Domestic Violence

This news is not new. Campaigners have been trying to show the Female Victimhood due to Tyrannical Patriarch Masculine aggression is just plain wrong for many years. This video was posted in 2009. I have many predating this all the way back to the early 90’s. This video defines inarguable research and data matching the world’s largest known study into Domestic Violence.

Lets Start with Actual Proven Domestic Violence Facts

The largest and moist comprehensive study into Domestic Violence is known as the PASK report, also known as “The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project”. The PASK project is to my knowledge, the world’s largest domestic violence research database, comprising some 2,657 pages, presenting summaries of 1700 peer-reviewed studies.

Most studies you have ever read will be included within these results, with the exception of highly biased Duluth Model Questionnaires, concocted and proposed by Feminist organisations ensuring Highly biased Anti-male, Female victimhood results. These questionnaires were conducted by the Australian government, exactly as devised Feminist organisations.

Just to whet your appetite for real truth, here’s 1 highly evidenced statistic, read the page for the rest.

  • Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%).

Can I prove the Australian government research was Feminist proposed?

How about I provide you the evidence for you to decide. I forewarn you, the Militant Feminist Activists will argue, deflect, try to ignore, overshadow, discredit and probably lie to disprove this evidence. when they fail to disprove, they will get loud, yell, scream, protest and threaten. Primarily, they’ll probably try denial showing their own fabricated studies results using misleading Anecdotal evidence.

Here are the Duluth Model Wheel behavioural demands of Men (Yes, Men only)

  • Making her afraid by using looks
  • Making her afraid by actions
  • Making her afraid by gestures
  • Smashing things
  • Destroying her property
  • Abusing pets
  • Displaying weapons
  • Putting her down,
  • Making her feel bad about herself,
  • Calling her names,
  • Making her think she’s crazy
  • Playing mind games
  • Humiliating her
  • Making her feel guilty
  • Controlling what she does
  • Controlling who she sees and talks to
  • Controlling what she reads
  • Controlling where she goes
  • Limiting her outside involvement
  • Using jealousy to justify actions
  • Minimizing, Denying and Blaming
  • Making light of the abuse and not taking her concerns about it seriously
  • Saying the abuse didn’t happen
  • Shifting responsibility for abusive behaviour
  • Saying she caused it
  • Making her feel guilty about the children
  • Using the children to relay messages
  • Using visitation to harass her
  • Threatening to take the children away
  • Treating her like a servant
  • Making all the big decisions
  • Acting like the “master of the castle”
  • Being the one to define men’s and women’s roles
  • Preventing her from getting or keeping a job
  • Making her ask for money
  • Giving her an allowance
  • Taking her money
  • Not letting her know about or have access to family income
  • Making and/or carrying out threats to do something to hurt her
  • Threatening to leave her
  • Threatening to commit suicide
  • Threatening to report her to welfare
  • Making her drop charges
  • Making her do illegal things

The Duluth Model has only 2 possible outcomes in any relationship. A convicted male abuser or an acquitted male abuser.

Here are the Australian government researched questions of women, about men. You’ll note, the order and groupings are changed

  • Pushed, grabbed or shoved the respondent
  • Threw something at the respondent that could hurt them, or slapped, bit, kicked or hit them with a fist
  • Forced the respondent to take part in sexual activity against their will
  • Choked/strangled the respondent or grabbed them around the neck
  • Hit the respondent with something that could hurt them, beat them, stabbed them with a knife or shot them with a gun
  • Physically assaulted the respondent or hurt them in any other way
  • At least one form of physical or sexual violence
  • More than one form of physical or sexual violence
  • Average number of types of physical or sexual violence experienced
  • Constantly insulted the respondent to make them feel ashamed, belittled or humiliated; or shouted, yelled or verbally abused the respondent to intimidate them
  • Was jealous or suspicious of the respondent’s friends
  • Monitored the respondent’s time and made them account for their whereabouts
  • Used the respondent’s/shared money or made important financial decisions without talking to them
  • Interfered with the respondent’s relationships with other family members
  • Accused the respondent of having an affair
  • Tried to keep the respondent from doing things to help themselves
  • Threatened to hurt themselves
  • Damaged, destroyed or stole the respondent’s property
  • Threatened or abused respondent online or through the use of technology (eg mobile phone)
  • Stalked the respondent online or in person
  • Restricted the respondent’s use of their phone, the internet or the family car
  • Threatened to hurt the respondent’s family, friends, children and/or pets
  • At least one form of emotionally abusive, harassing or controlling behaviour
  • More than one form of emotionally abusive, harassing or controlling behaviour
  • Three or more forms of emotionally abusive, harassing or controlling behaviour (coercive control)
  • Average number of emotionally abusive, harassing or controlling behaviours

ABS studies and outcomes were deliberately set up to follow the Man Bashing Feminist narrative, redefining everything Feminists wanted called violence to count, right down to female employment, how household decisions were made, or how money was shared. In every question, if the woman didn’t get exactly her choices, that constituted VIOLENCE!


Next, and you have to love this, males were not even questioned, producing the exact result Radical Feminists engineered. They pulled the strings of the Australian government just like the Hans Blix marionette in Team America (Hans Blix was the UN Leader Kim Jong-Il fed to the sharks). Artificially huge violence numbers, with most numbers not being violence at all (simply household disagreement), with a result of 100% female victims, 0% male victims.

The single most ludicrous element of this entire survey was when 2 females were partnered in a lesbian relationship and treated each other badly (say argued over money), both women were counted as victims with the implied statistic appearing they were both victims of males.

Ironically, Female vs Female relationships had the statistically highest percentage of violence! This statistic is agreed in the PASK study.

Here’s how this male prejudistic, highly discriminatory survey was deliberately contrived to disgrace men as detailed in ABS Methodology.

The survey was funded by the Office of the Status of Women (OSW) and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, both of which have responsibility for developing and implementing policies relating to women.

A Survey Reference Group, comprising experts in the field of crime and violence against women, provided the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) with advice on the information to be collected and on some aspects of survey methodology. Members of the group included representatives from State and Commonwealth health departments, crime research agencies, women’s services providers, women’s health research organisations, academics and OSW.

Deliberately, this survey was covertly arranged without the input of a single MEN’S interest group or any consideration of male representation. It was undoubtedly set up with absolute intent of stigmatising males, producing data for Financial and Law Change Lobbying.

The latest survey

After years of Men’s group campaigning, a token number of men were finally included in the latest survey. The methodology applied to males was substantially different distorting the male results. Now here’s where all the pretty graphs, convincing bar charts, credible looking pictorial views as well deceptive statistics are far more discriminatory against males than real results should show.

It appears;

  • If a male has input into a females need to work or not to work, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male spends a females money, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male controls family income, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male gave a female an allowance, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male made her ask for money, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male defined Men’s and Women’s roles, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male acts like the “Mater of the Castle”, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male treats the female like a servant, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male makes the big decisions, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male makes a female think she’s crazy, that’s abuse, not vice versa,
  • If a male plays “Mind Games”, that’s abuse, not vice versa,

These items are all clearly defined as Male Abuse under the Duluth model and every Feminist knows it.

Even with chronic underrepresentation, discriminatory methodology and unilateral application of many elements, the results are still showing 41% of victims are male

Among women who had experienced partner violence since the age of 15:

Almost 2 in 3 (63% or 864,000) victims of previous partner violence sought support, compared with more than 1 in 2 (54% or 150,000) victims of current partner violence.
Among men who had experienced partner violence since the age of 15:

Over 2 in 5 (41% or 162,000) victims of previous partner violence sought support, compared with nearly 1 in 3 (29% or 43,500) victims of current partner violence, although this should be interpreted with caution due to small numbers (ABS 2017a).

Even with a highly prejudicial survey presenting skewed results that don’t meet balanced Random Survey standards, substantial Female initiated violence is still very clear.

So even with highly prejudistic surveys engineered by Feminist selected modelling, the results are in. The Duluth Model is proven to be the singular most unreliable model available to gauge Domestic Violence.

The Real Statistics

Now would you like some Genuine numbers? The numbers created by compiling the results of 1700 surveys with data compiled from 2657 pages.

Facts and Statistics on Prevalence of Partner Abuse 

  • Overall, 22% of individuals assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime (23% for females and 19.3% for  males)
  • Higher overall rates among dating students
  • Higher victimization for male than female high school students
  • Lifetime rates higher among women than men
  • Past year rates somewhat higher among men
  • Higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) among younger, dating populations “highlights the need for school-based IPV prevention and intervention efforts”
  • Overall, 25.3% of individuals have perpetrated IPV
  • Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)
  • Wide range in perpetration rates:  1.0% to 61.6% for males; 2.4% to 68.9% for women,
  • Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV 
Emotional Abuse and Control
  • 80% of individuals have perpetrated emotional abuse
  • Emotional abuse categorized as either expressive (in response to a provocation) or coercive (intended to monitor, control and/or threaten)
  • Across studies, 40% of women and 32% of men reported expressive abuse; 41% of women and 43% of men reported coercive abuse
  • According to national samples, 0.2% of men and 4.5% of women have been forced to have sexual intercourse by a partner
  • 4.1% to 8% of women and 0.5% to 2% of men report at least one incident of stalking during their lifetime
  • Intimate stalkers comprise somewhere between one-third and one half of all stalkers.
  • Within studies of stalking and obsessive behaviors, gender differences are much less when all types of obsessive pursuit behaviors are considered, but more skewed toward female victims when the focus is on physical stalking

Facts and Statistics on Context

Bi-directional vs. Uni-directional
  • Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)
  • Among school and college samples, percentage of  bidirectional violence was 51.9%; 16.2% was MFPV and 31.9% was FMPV
  • Among respondents reporting IPV in legal or female-oriented clinical/treatment seeking samples not associated with the military, 72.3% was bi-directional; 13.3% was MFPV, 14.4% was FMPV
  • Within military and male treatment samples, only 39% of IPV was bi-directional; 43.4% was MFPV and 17.3% FMPV
  • Unweighted rates:  bidirectional rates ranged from 49.2% (legal/female treatment) to 69.7% (legal/male treatment)
  • Extent of bi-directionality in IPV comparable between heterosexual and LGBT populations
  • 50.9% of IPV among Whites bilateral; 49% among Latinos; 61.8% among African-Americans

Leave a Reply